I don't really see why tornadoes need to exist in the first place.
Me neither. I don't think anyone does.
What good in the scheme of nature, do they cause?
I have no idea. Apparently, the consensus is nothing.
And, yes, why couldn't the tornado simply land in an unoccupied territory?
It could. But what about the next one? Does this go for all tornadoes? My point is that I'm not sure we are prepared to have God intervene in this way because there is always another circumstance that we would wish for such intervention. It's a long road to decide these things.
Drifting wrote: I would have him stop taking the credit when things go well and stop leading to believe He will intervene when clearly He has no intention of doing so.
Now, do you think a persons prayers can make a difference to wether God acts or not?
So you don't like what He didn't do, but you can't offer what He should do. How exactly would God satisfy you in this specific instance?
Avoiding answering the question? That's a tad hypocritical of you don't you think? God cannot satisfy me.
I've answered your questions, so have the manners to answer mine.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Hoops wrote: It could. But what about the next one? Does this go for all tornadoes? My point is that I'm not sure we are prepared to have God intervene in this way because there is always another circumstance that we would wish for such intervention. It's a long road to decide these things.
why the concern Hoops? Does God get tired or something?
Hoops wrote: Not this believer. What is more usual is that the non-believers have been asked, repeatedly, to define what they would have God do. No answer. Just a lot of posturing like posting cartoons.
Lots of people have answered. As usual, you just ignore them.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote: Lots of people have answered. As usual, you just ignore them.
Sure. They answer questions that have not been asked. Or they provide answers that don't address the question. Or they criticize positions no one here holds. If that's your standard, then you've met it remarkably well.
harmony wrote:Death is only a bad thing, if you think this life is all there is.
Death of children is a bad thing no matter what you believe about afterlives.
Not always, no.
You realize, of course, that historically your statement is not true? And that even now, in some cultures that is not true?
Some cultures value the elderly, some value men, some value children. Amazing how few value women, but that's a different thread.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Buffalo wrote:Okay, death of children is always bad unless you're a complete waste of a human being who doesn't value the lives of children.
How ethnocentric of you.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.